Author Topic: Vacancy Sense - II (Read 4640 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2015, 10:20:04 AM »

And there in is the problem. It seems that the Bishop has closed in upon the belief that the whole of the Church's trial and its resolution rests in and among prophecies and visionary claims.

I would posit that the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ are not dependent upon the imaginings of men.
God's mind is unknowable and incomprehensible, and this is where relying upon the Faith firmly, and unshakably, is the way to Heaven, and what little understanding we can have of things.

I think that he protesteth too much, in defense of the conciliar popes. It has been all out of proportion to expounding on other topics, and it is going further out as time goes by.
We have lived under the SSPX position on these matters for decades, and most of us, dutifully so.
It is enough.

Columba · « **Reply #16 on:** May 04, 2015, 03:12:52 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

I think that he protesteth too much, in defense of the conciliar popes. It has been all out of proportion to expounding on other topics, and it is going further out as time goes by.
We have lived under the SSPX position on these matters for decades, and most of us, dutifully so.
It is enough.

Indeed, arguments for and against sedevacantism have all been rehashed many times over. Extension of this debate is irresponsible since it serves only to distract from the primary task of restoration.

TKGS · « **Reply #17 on:** May 04, 2015, 06:10:08 PM »

It is interesting that many anti-sedevacantists have finally given up on question whether the Conciliar popes (well, at least this one) are heretics and have instead adopted the line made famous by Hillary Clinton, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

JPaul · « **Reply #18 on:** May 04, 2015, 08:27:31 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: J.Paul
I think that he protesteth too much, in defense of the conciliar popes. It has been all out of proportion to expounding on other topics, and it is going further out as time goes by.
We have lived under the SSPX position on these matters for decades, and most of us, dutifully so.
It is enough.

Indeed, arguments for and against sedevacantism have all been rehashed many times over. Extension of this debate is irresponsible since it serves only to distract from the primary task of restoration.

That is precisely the point. The keep us skirmishing on the sidelines instead of leading us to the field of battle.

JPaul · « **Reply #19 on:** May 04, 2015, 08:36:51 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

It is interesting that many anti-sedevacantists have finally given up on question whether the Conciliar popes (well, at least this one) are heretics and have instead adopted the line made famous by Hillary Clinton, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

Absolutely, as if it does not matter.

Ferdinand · « **Reply #20 on:** May 05, 2015, 07:45:34 PM »

:applause:

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote

Then if he does fall into heresy, does that not make him cease to be a member of the Church?

As an individual Catholic person, yes, but as Pope, not necessarily, because the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic.

In other words, he's saying, along with Cajetan, that a public non-Catholic can be pope, i.e. that heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. This error is the very basis of that theory.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
...an official declaration of the Pope’s heresy would be necessary to bind Catholics to stay united. Such a declaration would have to come from a Church Council, assembled for that purpose.

Everyone agrees with this part, the problem is the error that a council could judge a valid pope (another error of the otherwise great Cajetan). The council's declaration would merely make what is true (that he is no longer pope because of his heresy) manifest to all, it could not depose a valid pope because that would make the council superior to the pope. Therefore, he would have to have lost the pontificate even before the declaration, which necessarily means that he lost it upon professing public heresy.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But if the heresy were public and obvious, surely that would be enough to depose him?

No, because firstly every heretic must be officially warned before being deposed...

This is another error closely related to the one above. No bishop, no cardinal, and no institution can "officially warn" a pope (which is the act of a superior). The First See is judged by no one.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
So just as a bishop stays in office until he is deposed by the Pope, so the Pope stays in office until the official declaration of his heresy by a Church Council enables Christ to depose him.

A bishop who is a public heretic immediately loses all jurisdiction, per Canon 188/4, even before the Pope declares that fact (Nestorius being a prime example). As for the part I underlined and emphasized in bold, I think we could call it a freudian slip because ultimately, if we the take the two aforementioned errors out of the equation, this whole position could be caricatured as saying to God: "No, you can't depose him yet, we don't care if he's not a Catholic, we still haven't done the proper paperwork... OK, now we've finished our business, you can depose him now."

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But if a heretic is not a member of the Church, how can he be its head, the most important member?

... His membership of the Church by faith and charity is incompatible with heresy, but his governing of the Church by his official jurisdiction, not requiring faith or charity, is compatible with heresy.

Here again we see that the foundation for the whole theory is the error that public heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. The Bishop even admits that a pope who became a public heretic would no longer be a member of the Church. How can someone who is not even a member be the head?

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But by his heresy a former Pope has thrown away his Papacy!

Personally and in private that is true, but that is not true officially and in public until a Church Council has made not only public but also official his heresy. Until then the Pope must be treated as Pope, because for the Church’s tranquillity and common good, Christ maintains his jurisdiction.

If the heresy is public, so is the effect of the heresy.
To claim that for the common good Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a public heretic, a non-member, is to gratuitously assume what is in no way proven, and in fact goes against the very Divine Law Christ has set - that public heretics cannot receive jurisdiction in the Church.

Columba · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2015, 03:14:45 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

It is interesting that many anti-sedevacantists have finally given up on question whether the Conciliar popes (well, at least this one) are heretics and have instead adopted the line made famous by Hillary Clinton, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

Catholicism is a religion dedicated to the conquest and governing of human society through means dictated by circuмstance. Nonviolent means obtain the necessary leverage for employment of those historically violent actions essential for suppressing evil and maintaining the Social Kingship of Christ.

Proponents of the post-Vatican II R&R and SV neo-dogmas have temporarily gutted traditional Catholicism of its evangelistic core. The Great Commission is sacrificed on the altar of neo-dogmatic infighting. Traditional pre-VII Catholicism has the answers to life's most pressing questions so it could never fail to attract large numbers unless its leaders were to too preoccupied to get the message out. Post-VII trad neo-dogma provides no answers, only speculation, and drives away the many who are curious.

It should not matter to any Catholic whether a modern pagan converts to the traditional Faith via R&R or SV channels. It should not matter whether the adjacent soldier in the march to reconquer Rome is R&R or SV because these differences will become moot once the target is secured.

misericordianos · « **Reply #22 on:** May 14, 2015, 01:36:30 PM »

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote

Then if he does fall into heresy, does that not make him cease to be a member of the Church?

As an individual Catholic person, yes, but as Pope, not necessarily, because the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic.

In other words, he's saying, along with Cajetan, that a public non-Catholic can be pope, i.e. that heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. This error is the very basis of that theory.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
...an official declaration of the Pope’s heresy would be necessary to bind Catholics to stay united. Such a declaration would have to come from a Church Council, assembled for that purpose.

Everyone agrees with this part, the problem is the error that a council could judge a valid pope (another error of the otherwise great Cajetan). The council's declaration would merely make what is true (that he is no longer pope because of his heresy) manifest to all, it could not depose a valid pope because that would make the council superior to the pope. Therefore, he would have to have lost the pontificate even before the declaration, which necessarily means that he lost it upon professing public heresy.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But if the heresy were public and obvious, surely that would be enough to depose him?

No, because firstly every heretic must be officially warned before being deposed...

This is another error closely related to the one above. No bishop, no cardinal, and no institution can "officially warn" a pope (which is the act of a superior). The First See is judged by no one.

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
So just as a bishop stays in office until he is deposed by the Pope, so the Pope stays in office until the official declaration of his heresy by a Church Council enables Christ to depose him.

A bishop who is a public heretic immediately loses all jurisdiction, per Canon 188/4, even before the Pope declares that fact (Nestorius being a prime example). As for the part I underlined and emphasized in bold, I think we could call it a freudian slip because ultimately, if we the take the two aforementioned errors out of the equation, this whole position could be caricatured as saying to God: "No, you can't depose him yet, we don't care if he's not a Catholic, we still haven't done the proper paperwork... OK, now we've finished our business, you can depose him now."

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But if a heretic is not a member of the Church, how can he be its head, the most important member?

... His membership of the Church by faith and charity is incompatible with heresy, but his governing of the Church by his official jurisdiction, not requiring faith or charity, is compatible with heresy.

Here again we see that the foundation for the whole theory is the error that public heretics can hold jurisdiction in the Church. The Bishop even admits that a pope who became a public heretic would no longer be a member of the Church. How can someone who is not even a member be the head?

Bp. Williamson said:
Quote
But by his heresy a former Pope has thrown away his Papacy!

Personally and in private that is true, but that is not true officially and in public until a Church Council has made not only public but also official his heresy. Until then the Pope must be treated as Pope, because for the Church’s tranquillity and common good, Christ maintains his jurisdiction.

If the heresy is public, so is the effect of the heresy.
To claim that for the common good Christ would maintain the jurisdiction of a public heretic, a non-member, is to gratuitously assume what is in no way proven, and in fact goes against the very Divine Law Christ has set - that public heretics cannot receive jurisdiction in the Church.

Bishop Williamson could easily cite theologians to support his views.

So those who reject the pope are acting on the basis of a non-settled, disputed issue among the theologians. The Magisterium has never entered that fray.

More importantly, even in the case of an ipso facto deposition for heresy the Catholic world would need a declaration or at least warnings of heresy from competent authority, or else you’re making a private judgment. This should cause caution.

There are theologians to back that up:

Quote

This point was explained by the canonist S.B. Smith. In his classic work, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law (1881), we find the following:

“Question: Is a Pope who falls into heresy deprived, ipso jure, of the Pontificate?

"Answer: There are two opinions: one holds that he is by virtue of divine appointment, divested ipso facto, of the Pontificate; the other, that he is, jure divino, only removable. Both opinions agree that he must at least be declared guilty of heresy by the Church - i.e., by an ecuмenical council or the College of Cardinals.” (2)

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-siscoe-and-john-of-st-thomas.html

And John of St. Thomas:

Quote

“For the pope’s heresy cannot be public to all of the faithful except by an indictment brought by others. But the indictment of an individual does not bind, since it is not juridical, and consequently none would be obliged to accept it and avoid him. Therefore, it is necessary that, just as the Church designates the man and proposes him to the faithful as being elected Pope, thus also the Church declares him a heretic and proposes him as one to be avoided.”

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-siscoe-and-john-of-st-thomas.html

As to Cajetan’s “error,” St. Robert had this to say:

Quote

“The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed, The argument from authority is based on Saint Paul (Titus, 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence (…) . Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? [Minor] … therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-siscoe-and-john-of-st-thomas.html

Thus, St. Robert presupposes warnings which, if unheeded, effect an automatic deposition.

As to the need that a pope be warned by competent authorities:

Quote

Commenting on the proposition that a pope who is externally a heretic, but who has not been warned, remains pope, John of St. Thomas wrote:

“This statement… is obvious and is not contradicted by Bellarmine. The truth is evident for the following reason: the pope insofar as he is externally a heretic, if he is prepared to be corrected, cannot be deposed (as we have said above), and the Church, by divine law, cannot declare him deposed, as it cannot yet avoid him, since, according to the Apostle [Paul], ‘a man who is a heretic is to be avoided, after the first and second warning’.Therefore, before the first and second warning, he is not to be avoided by the Church...Therefore, it is falsely said that a Pontiff, by the very fact that he is a heretic externally is deposed: truly, he is able to be so publicly as long as he has not yet been warned by the Church....”

This teaching of John of St. Thomas is confirmed by the eminent 18th Century Italian theologian, Fr. Petri Ballerini – who is an adherent of Bellarmine’s fifth opinion. A portion of the following quote was included in the April article, but what was not specifically pointed out is that, according to Fr. Ballerini, before the Pope is warned he is still a legitimate Pope (which will become more clear in the commentary that follows). He begins by saying that a Pontiff who “defended heresy” would be a grave danger to the faith. He then asks who would have the authority to issue a warning to a Pope, and explains what such a warning would accomplish:

“Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith, any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic,after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of anyone whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. (…)Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church, making clear that by his own will he had turned away and separated himself from the body of the Church, and that in a certain way he had abdicated the Pontificate…” (6)

http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/01/robert-siscoe-and-john-of-st-thomas.html

You want to side with a mere “opinion,” questionable at that, by some theologians and the Father Cekadas of this world? There are contrary opinions, and this is a grave matter.

I say Bishop Williamson’s course is the more prudent, and well-grounded.

JPaul · « **Reply #23 on:** May 14, 2015, 04:21:46 PM »

Columba,

Quote

It should not matter to any Catholic whether a modern pagan converts to the traditional Faith via R&R or SV channels. It should not matter whether the adjacent soldier in the march to reconquer Rome is R&R or SV because these differences will become moot once the target is secured.

It actually does matter who is beside you, as the R&R proponents still believe that we have a Catholic pope in some form, and they are to timid or reluctant to determine otherwise. Thus, they will not be so highly motivated to engage in direct action to rid the Church of the conciliar bandits. They are more likely to tell you to wait until the Immaculate Heart sees them all to the door.
Sedes may be close, but they at least don't operate under the pretense that a heretic is still a well meaning Catholic.

You never enter a battle with uncommitted or wavering soldiers and expect to achieve your goal.

Columba · « **Reply #24 on:** May 15, 2015, 03:20:02 PM »

Quote from: misericordianos

[...]

Bishop Williamson could easily cite theologians to support his views.

So those who reject the pope are acting on the basis of a non-settled, disputed issue among the theologians. The Magisterium has never entered that fray.

More importantly, even in the case of an ipso facto deposition for heresy the Catholic world would need a declaration or at least warnings of heresy from competent authority, or else you’re making a private judgment. This should cause caution.

There are theologians to back that up:

[...]

You want to side with a mere “opinion,” questionable at that, by some theologians and the Father Cekadas of this world? There are contrary opinions, and this is a grave matter.

I say Bishop Williamson’s course is the more prudent, and well-grounded.

You make a strong case against dogmatic Sedevacantism, and admit an almost equally strong a case against dogmatic R&R. So why take sides in such a damagingly divisive religious dispute if, as you say, "The Magisterium has never entered that fray."?

Columba · « **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2015, 06:58:22 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Columba,
Quote
It should not matter to any Catholic whether a modern pagan converts to the traditional Faith via R&R or SV channels. It should not matter whether the adjacent soldier in the march to reconquer Rome is R&R or SV because these differences will become moot once the target is secured.

It actually does matter who is beside you, as the R&R proponents still believe that we have a Catholic pope in some form, and they are to timid or reluctant to determine otherwise. Thus, they will not be so highly motivated to engage in direct action to rid the Church of the conciliar bandits.

It should not matter if these fighters hold allegiance to the Church higher than any attachment they feel toward their respective speculative subcategories. Operational details would be determined by the military leadership according to circuмstance. I think there are various possible strategies amenable to both R&Rs and SVs who are non-dogmatic. Special precaution must be taken to preclude violent cινιℓ ωαr between these two groups, which might otherwise break out in a situation where action had become direct.

Quote from: J.Paul

They are more likely to tell you to wait until the Immaculate Heart sees them all to the door.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with expecting the triumph of the Immaculate Heart to bring about a solution. If biblical and Church history is any guide, it is likely that the triumph will involve some participation by the Church Militant.

However, there are some who interpret the Fatima Prophesy as license to shirk the duties of Catholic action. This sentiment was recently exemplified by Cathinfo member steelcross here, if I am not mistaken. (Steelcross, please correct me if I am wrong.) I am no authority of theologian, but this sentiment reeks of quietist error to me and I believe it is widespread.

It reminds me of words "we should pray" that are so often said in negative response to the advocacy of action, as if prayer were not the foundation of all genuinely Catholic action, as if prayer and action were two opposite ends on a spectrum of holiness. This quietist tendency is not, strictly speaking, part of the R&R position and it may exist within both the R&R and SV camps as you perhaps indicated.

To cooperate, the core remnant must be free from the taint of quietism and non-dogmatic in their speculative (R&R/SV) positions.

misericordianos · « **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2015, 08:45:11 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: misericordianos
[...]

Bishop Williamson could easily cite theologians to support his views.

So those who reject the pope are acting on the basis of a non-settled, disputed issue among the theologians. The Magisterium has never entered that fray.

More importantly, even in the case of an ipso facto deposition for heresy the Catholic world would need a declaration or at least warnings of heresy from competent authority, or else you’re making a private judgment. This should cause caution.

There are theologians to back that up:

[...]

You want to side with a mere “opinion,” questionable at that, by some theologians and the Father Cekadas of this world? There are contrary opinions, and this is a grave matter.

I say Bishop Williamson’s course is the more prudent, and well-grounded.

You make a strong case against dogmatic Sedevacantism, and admit an almost equally strong a case against dogmatic R&R. So why take sides in such a damagingly divisive religious dispute if, as you say, "The Magisterium has never entered that fray."?

In such a case as this, to be “dogmatic” in either position is not justified.

steelcross · « **Reply #27 on:** May 16, 2015, 01:50:33 PM »

Perhaps I could have been more specific; in no way did I meant shy away from our catholic duties in standing up to modernism. I simply meant do not fret, as the victory is won, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.